A1: No. The VFA is an agreement between the two countries to support the Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT). The MDT was established in 1951 between the United States and the Philippines to provide mutual assistance in the event of an attack on foreigners. In support of U.S. foreign policy, the United States has agreements with foreign countries on security and insurance obligations36. These agreements can be concluded in various forms, including in the form of a collective defence treaty (requiring the parties to the agreement to assist in the defence of a party to the agreement in the event of an attack), an agreement that contains a request for consultation (a party to the agreement requires action if the other parties to the agreement are threatened in the event of an attack on the security of the country. , an agreement that granted the right to military intervention (which gave one party the right to intervene, but not the duty to intervene militarily on the territory of another party to defend it against internal or external threats) or any other non-binding agreement (unilateral commitment or political declaration). CANPAÉs are often included as part of a comprehensive security agreement with other types of military agreements (such as the base. B, access and prepositioning). A SOFA may be based on the authority that has been found in previous contracts, convention measures or exclusive executive agreements that include the security agreement. With each discussion on SOFA, it should be noted that there are at least 10 agreements that are currently classified. The agreements are classified for national security reasons.
They are not covered in this report. The political issue of SOFA is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign bases on their soil and that SOFA renegotiation requests are often linked to calls for a total withdrawal of foreign troops. Issues of different national practices may arise – while the United States and host countries in general agree on what constitutes a crime, many American observers believe that the host country`s judicial systems offer much lower protection than the United States and that the host country`s courts may be under pressure from the public to be found guilty; In addition, U.S. service members who are invited to send shipments abroad should not be forced to waive their rights under the Rights Act. On the other hand, observers of the host country who do not have a local equivalent of the law of rights often feel that these are irrelevant excuses for special treatment and resemble the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism. A host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that gives its members total immunity from prosecution by the Kyrgyz authorities for any crime, which goes far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans enter into their country`s couch with the United States. [11] A sofa must clarify the conditions under which the foreign army can operate. As a general rule, purely military issues, such as base location and access to facilities, are covered by separate agreements.